One document matched: draft-ginsberg-isis-tlv-codepoints-00.xml

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ginsberg-isis-tlv-codepoints-00.txt"
     ipr="pre5378Trust200902">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="isis-tlv-codepoints">Updates to IS-IS TLV Codepoints
    Registry</title>

    <author fullname="Les Ginsberg" initials="L" surname="Ginsberg">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>510 McCarthy Blvd.</street>

          <city>Milpitas</city>

          <code>95035</code>

          <region>CA</region>

          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>

        <email>ginsberg@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date day="22" month="May" year="2014"/>

    <area>Routing Area</area>

    <workgroup>Networking Working Group</workgroup>

    <keyword>Codepoint</keyword>

    <abstract>
      <t>This document recommends some editorial changes to the IANA IS-IS TLV
      Codepoints registry to more accurately document the state of the
      protocol. It also defines early allocation procedures for codepoints
      managed by the registry.</t>
    </abstract>

    <note title="Requirements Language">
      <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
      "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
      document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].</t>
    </note>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction">
      <t>The IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry was created by [RFC3563] and
      extended by [RFC6233]. As IS-IS related RFCs are published the
      codepoints required for the protocol extensions are added to the IANA
      managed registry. In the case of TLVs supporting neighbor advertisement
      a common sub-TLV registry has been created. This sub-TLV registry needs
      to include additional neighbor advertisement TLVs defined in
      [RFC5311].</t>

      <t>In the case of TLVs supporting prefix advertisement, currently
      separate sub-TLV registries are maintained for each TLV. These
      registries need to be combined into a common sub-TLV registry similar to
      what has been done for neighbor advertisement TLVs.</t>

      <t>There is a need to support early allocation of codepoints defined in
      drafts which seem likely to eventually gain WG approval. The procedure
      for obtaining early allocation of codepoints is described.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="IS Neighbor sub-TLV Registry">
      <t>There is an existing common sub-TLV registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV 22,
      141, and 222. [RFC5311] defines the IS Neighbor Attribute TLV (23) and
      the MT IS Neighbor Attribute TLV (223). Format of these TLVs is
      identical to TLVs 22 and 222 respectively. The IS Neighbor sub-TLV
      Registry needs to be extended to include these two TLVs. Settings for
      inclusion of each sub-TLV are identical to the settings for TLVs 22 and
      222 respectively.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Prefix Reachability sub-TLV Registry">
      <t>Currently there exist separate sub-TLV registries for TLVs (135, 235,
      236, 237). As in the case of the IS Neighbor TLVs discussed in the
      previous section, assignment of sub-TLVs applicable to one or more of
      these TLVs is intended to be common. Therefore the existing separate
      sub-TLV registries need to be combined into a single registry entitled
      "Sub-TLVs for TLVs 135, 235, 236, and 237". As existing sub-TLV
      assignments are common to all the TLVs this represents no change to the
      protocol - only a clearer representation of the intended sub-TLV
      allocation strategy. Format of the registry would be as shown below:</t>

      <t><figure>
          <artwork><![CDATA[
Type  Description                       135 235 236 237  Reference
----  ------------                      --- --- --- ---  ---------
0     Unassigned
1     32-bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV  Y   Y   Y   Y   [RFC5130]
1     64-bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV  Y   Y   Y   Y   [RFC5130]
3-255 Unassigned

]]></artwork>
        </figure></t>
    </section>

    <section title="Early Allocation of Codepoints">
      <t>When new drafts are introduced requiring new codepoints, it is
      advantageous to have the ability to do early allocation of codepoints.
      The reasons this is advantageous and the process to do so is described
      in [RFC7120]. However, [RFC7120] procedures do not apply to registries
      such as the IS-IS TLV Codepoints Registry which utilize "Expert Review"
      allocation policy. In such cases what is required is that a request be
      made to the designated experts. The following procedures are defined.
      Note these procedures apply specifically to the IS-IS TLV Codepoints
      registry. This document is not defining a general early allocation
      process for other Expert Review registries.</t>

      <t><list style="numbers">
          <t>In order to qualify for early allocation a draft MUST be accepted
          as a WG document</t>

          <t>The author(s) of the draft MAY request early allocation of
          codepoints to the chair(s) of the WG in which the document is
          submitted</t>

          <t>The WG chair(s) gauge whether there is consensus within the WG
          that early allocation is appropriate for the given document and that
          the conditions for early allocation specified in [RFC7120] Section 2
          are satisfied. If so the request is forwarded to the Area
          Director(s).</t>

          <t>If the Area Director(s) approve, the request is forwarded to the
          Designated Experts for their approval.</t>

          <t>Once the Designated Experts have granted approval IANA will
          update the registry marking the allocated codepoints as "Temporary"
          following the procedures specified in [RFC7120] Section 3.1</t>
        </list></t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>This document requires the addition of TLVs 23 and 223 to the
      existing Sub-TLVs for TLV 22, 141, and 222 registry as described in
      Section 2.</t>

      <t>This document requires the existing sub-TLV registries for TLVs (135,
      235, 236, 237) be combined into a single registry as described in
      Section 3.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>This document introduces no new security issues.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements">
      <t>The author wishes to thank Alia Atlas and Amanda Baber for their
      input in defining the correct process to follow to get these changes
      implemented.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5130'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5311'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6233'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.7120'?>
    </references>

    <references title="Informational References">
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.3563"?>
    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>